.comment: Microsoft Doesn't Care What We Think

The only thing we have to fear....

The story is told of the old woman who tells a friend she'll vote
against a particular candidate because "he wants to wipe out Social Security."

"No, no, no," her friend says. "You misunderstood him. He said he's
against social diseases."

"Well," replies the old woman. "I'm not taking any chances."

Sometimes the Linux community is too cute by half. This manifests
itself in various ways. One is when we rise in righteous indignation anytime
someone has the temerity to develop and actually sell software.

Another is the righteous indignation expressed this week when a
Microsoft droid came out with the mostly ridiculous notion that free and
open-source software somehow stifle innovation, and maybe ought to be
prohibited. All over the place came the angry denunciations. The free and
open-source communities were beside themselves.

Some clues: It's not going to be prohibited. It's not going to come
close to being prohibited. Prohibition of it is not going to be seriously
considered. Microsoft never figured for a minute that the remarks would be
taken at face value. And Microsoft doesn't give a toot what the Linux crowd
thinks, anyway.

(There is some wisdom in the idea that if anybody tries to make money
in the Linux sphere, that person will be set upon and beaten senseless by the
community, and in that sense innovation can be and has been stifled. But hold
your arrows for now -- I'll receive them another day.)

Microsoft knows that the road between Windows and Linux is mostly
one-way. There is no exodus of Linux users to Windows (though there are a few
people who give Linux a try, realize that it requires competence, and lacking
that ingredient return to Windows). Those who are using Linux are already a
lost cause to Microsoft.

The idea, then, is to stem the flow, to deter people -- especially
companies -- from trying out or developing for Linux. A good way to do that is
to address that little old lady who is hard of hearing. As ridiculous as the
claims were and are, there's something in all of us, and especially in those
who make decisions for companies, who aren't taking any chances.

There used to be a saying, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM,"
and for a long time that saying was true, and it probably is close to true
today. But closer to true would be, "nobody ever got fired for buying
Microsoft." In today's corporate environment paranoia is the norm. The recent
collapse of the dotcom equities market has left a bad taste in the mouths of
business executives and, especially, the shareholders for whom they indirectly
work. It has always been a risk for IT people to suggest the deployment of
Linux. That risk is growing. Microsoft would like to fertilize it. And we know
what makes the best fertilizer, don't we?

The time-honored acronym is FUD -- fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's
tossed around all the time without a second thought. I propose that it
deserves that second thought.

FUD exists because the little old lady is taking no chances. It also
exists because it often contains a seed of truth.

I caught hell a week ago for saying that the militant element in the
"free" software movement was as bad in its way as Microsoft is. I did not
think that we would see that fact exploited so quickly.

Consider:

The community makes it as difficult as it can for businesses to develop
for Linux. Indeed, if someone were to make the claim that the Linux community
is fundamentally anti-business, I would have a hard time finding very
convincing evidence to the contrary. I mentioned to a colleague last week that
I figured it would be a week before someone came up with a hack to confound
the advertising banner in the free version of the excellent and commercial
Opera browser. I was wrong. The hack appeared on a mailing list in just three days.

An experiment:

As you read the newsgroups and mailing lists, as well as such things as
the talkbacks on Linux Today, make mental note of the postings that you would
use if trying to talk a business into adopting Linux over a Microsoft product.
And make note of the ones you'd avoid using. See what I mean?

And the saddest thing is that it's to no end at all. The presence of a
commercial aspect to Linux in no way hinders or reduces the development of
free and open-source software. Indeed, the inverse is true: The more corporate
IT departments involved in Linux, the broader the pool of talent from whom
ideas can be drawn, the greater number of people who will be contributing
code. Look at the number of developers already who have corporate email addresses.

But no. There's a substantial and very loud portion of the community
that has adopted a wrongheaded, holier-than-thou attitude that has the express
purpose of driving away business. Which is fine if what you're seeking is a
narrow, goofy, technically profound but fundamentally a toy, kind of operating system.

It can't be a surprise, though, that Microsoft capitalizes on that
attitude and makes it the engine powering a FUD campaign.

Anyone who is a veteran of previous Microsoft battles knows that
technical superiority is not enough to bring about victory. Neither is a
superior attitude or preaching to each other, seeing whose outrage is loudest.
No, victory is found in making the FUD unmistakably untrue.

Instead, there's all too much of an attitude that says the little old
lady is of no importance, except maybe for what we can pilfer from her purse.

Microsoft has fired the opening shots in what is going to be a very
long and extremely bloody dispute. We can whine about it, or we can do
something about it. If we choose the latter, the place to start is in
recognition that there's room here for everyone.